Netflix's four-part mini series on Cleopatra has created a storm of controversy over their casting of a black actress to play the role of the Egyptian queen. The fact that it has been categorised as a "documentary" has added to that controversy. To be labelled a documentary means it is intended to be taken seriously as being historically accurate. Instead, the "blackwashing" of Cleopatra is being called out by everyone and their dog as being factually inaccurate. Many of the countless videos on YouTube stress the fact that Cleopatra's ethnicity was (and this is the reason for my post) either "Greek"; "Greek-Macedonian" or; "Macedonian-Greek".
As tempting as it is, I haven't taken the plunge yet to get into a YouTube debate with Greeks over Cleopatra, however, I was pleasantly surprised to see many non-Macedonians in the various comments sections stressing that Cleopatra's ethnicity was Macedonian. One comment that put a smile on my face was seeing this: "Ancient Macedonians were as Greek as the Irish are English. Cleopatra was not Greek, she was Macedonian. Their upper classes adopted some aspects of Greek culture but the peasantry remained strictly Macedonian". You can imagine what followed. An avalanche of Greek responses claiming the usual crap. Still nice to see though that not everyone just nods along and accepts the bullshit being dished out.
For anyone thinking Cleopatra's ethnicity is simply too ambiguous to say for sure and that the Ptolemies all spoke Greek anyway, just keep in mind what the historical documents have to say about her. Anyone can offer a personal opinion and it will remain just that - an opinion. However, an opinion based on historical evidence carries a lot more weight and cannot easily be dismissed as ignorant conclusions. The greatest evidence we have for Cleopatra being Macedonian, in the purely ethnic sense, and not as some Greek derivative is Plutarch's accounts of her. He describes her as being fluent in her native Macedonian among the many other languages that she spoke and he expressed surprise in that fact since the Ptolemies, as he explains, had long forgotten their native Macedonian language and that they didn't even bother to learn the language of the land they ruled - the Egyptian language. This directly explains the reason why Greek was spoken in Egypt during the Ptolemaic reign. It was the common language of Alexander's empire and it continued to be so with the Ptolemies of Egypt.
-
Laeta kalogridis was/is involved in both Alexander (2004) and Cleopatra (2022) as a writer.
Leave a comment:
-
I’m giving this thread a bump as a result of the recently created thread regarding the “whitewashing” claims with respect to the casting of Israeli actress, Gal Gadot, playing the lead role of Cleopatra. I have to admit that, when Amphipolis posted the article above about this so called controversy, I merely glazed over it as I was immediately put off by the whole “Macedonian/Greek heritage” thing when it came to Cleopatra’s nationality. What else is new, I though at the time. If the Greeks get involved in this movie too, as they did with Oliver Stone’s Alexander, then the whole thing will reek with a crime, much, much, worse than the benign and, ideologically leftist crime of “whitewashing” and that is, the sinister Greek practice of “Greek-washing.”
Reading through the whole article, the central theme seems to be more of an anti-Jewish/Israeli tirade rather than the issue of “whitewashing”. Nevertheless, I want to touch on the issue of “whitewashing” first and the hypocrisy of leftists’ outrage. If I’m not mistaken, “whitewashing” is meant to call out the inappropriate casting of white actors/actresses playing the roles of historical figures which do not accurately represent the ethnic heritage of these figures. However, as can be seen from the paragraph below, historical accuracy is the last thing on a leftist’s mind.
So, in other words, it doesn’t matter if the historical Cleopatra was a white European woman. What is important to these wankers is that the actress playing Cleopatra represents the population of modern day Egypt. She should have been an Arab or a woman of colour.Regardless of this tedious conversation, it is, as it generally is, justified to call this out as whitewashing, as regardless of her origins, Cleopatra was Queen of modern day Egypt. And modern day Egypt has a population of 100 million people - and thousands of capable actresses.
Now for the issue of Greek-washing. The article’s emphasis on Cleopatra’s supposed Greek heritage is infuriating, to say the least. Again, if historical accuracy is anything to go by, we know from Plutarch’s writings that, although the Ptolemaic Royal Family had, over time, abandoned their native Macedonian language, and, couldn’t care less about learning the Egyptian language, this was not the case with Cleopatra. She was a gifted linguist who spoke about a dozen different languages including her native Macedonian. This is probably the single most important quote with regard to her ethnic heritage. It is quite evident from this ancient quote that, by the time of Cleopatra’s rule, most of the Ptolemies spoke Koine Greek, the language that Alexander the Great had originally instituted for administrative purposes into his Empire. The ambiguity created by the “Macedonian/Greek” description of Cleopatra’s ethnic heritage is a clear case of Greek-washing by various modern day authors, whether they do it consciously (in the case of Greeks) or naively (non-Greek authors).
Plutarch’s quote below:
Their acquaintance was with her when a girl, young and ignorant of the world...Her actual beauty, it is said, was not in itself so remarkable that none could be compared with her, or that no one could see her without being struck by it, but the contact of presence, if you lived with her, was irresistible...
It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of her voice, with which, like an instrument of many strings she could pass from one language to another; so that there were few of the barbarian nations that she answered by an interpreter; to most of them she spoke herself, as to the Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabians, Syrians, Medes, Parthians and many others, whose language she had learnt; which was all the more surprising, because most of the kings who were her predecessors scarcely gave themselves the trouble to acquire the Egyptian tongue, and several of them quite abandoned the Macedonian.Leave a comment:
-
How boring.
And no link. The Greek throwaway lines are optimistic.Leave a comment:
-
It’s not Gal Gadot’s ethnicity that's the problem
The casting of Gal Gadot to play Cleopatra has led to a backlash, but much of the outrage misses the point.
Cleopatra, the ancient Egyptian Queen, and one of the few women remembered from the region's history will be played by Israeli actress, Gal Gadot. Arguments of cultural appropriation, stealing Arab film roles, land, and culture, have already been made on social media.
In retaliation, many have claimed Cleopatra’s Macedonian/Greek heritage is justification and actually, more accurately represented by Gal Gadot.
Regardless of this tedious conversation, it is, as it generally is, justified to call this out as whitewashing, as regardless of her origins, Cleopatra was Queen of modern day Egypt. And modern day Egypt has a population of 100 million people - and thousands of capable actresses.
Cleopatra’s origins from her paternal side are Greek, she is thought to have Berber, Syrian, and other ancestry from the general region. There are a number of English-speaking Greek actresses and anything closer to home would have been more appropriate. Gal Gadot is Israeli, an Ashkenazi Jew, meaning her origins are likely European. In an interview, she herself explains she has Austrian, German, Polish, and Czech ancestry.
But the issue here is not ethnically-accurate casting; we’ve spent decades watching movies where every main character is American and white regardless of the film’s geographic setting - take for one of many examples, Tom Cruise in the Last Samurai; cinematic magic.
Hollywood has created the myth of Argraba that hangs over the Middle East and South Asia, even the previous Cleopatra was played by Elizabeth Taylor. Inaccurate representation is a long-standing issue with, generally, all ethnicities, despite recent efforts to rectify this.
What is of deeper concern is that two lead female roles have been handed to a former Israeli Defence Forces soldier, specifically, a combat trainer, quite literally responsible for the continuous oppression and colonisation of Palestine in a highly proactive way. This is not only propaganda for Israel and perpetuates the erasure of the Palestinian people, for example, her high profile interviews citing her very Jewish-Israeli upbringing (something largely appropriated from the indigenous people). Particularly when you consider that the Israeli state has appropriated everything from music to hummus from the Palestinian people.
In an interview where she was asked to say two Arabic words she used ‘Yalla’ and ‘Sababa’ both Arabic words and referenced her favourite Israeli breakfast as Shakshuka (of Arab-Levantine origin). It is harmful to women, particularly modern-day Arab women when she is actively hijacking their culture, for starters.
The former Miss Israel, teamed up with Wonder Woman director, Patty Jenkins, her husband, Yaron Varsano (and their jointly held production company Pilot Wave), and the scriptwriter, Laeta Kalogridis, the ‘A-team’ as she calls it.
Looking past the clear nepotism in her casting her for the role, her values as an individual are a poor portrayal of women from or in the region, and women in general. Just as she, because of her individual politics, has shown she is anything but a real Wonder Woman, she should not be allowed to represent symbols of power factual or fictional.
Cleopatra's legacy was not her ethnicity, it is the magical, surreal, and forceful idea of female power, arguably, the same power behind the myth of wonder Wonder Woman. It is therefore critical to cast an individual who can hold to these standards of being role models.
However, instead, for coming generations, we have an individual who in addition to perpetuating violence herself - that has been judged as brutal and inhumane by the international community - also purposefully convoluted violence and sexuality in order to find her way into Hollywood. For this example to be a role model for young girls everywhere, is toxic - especially for these iconic roles.
Furthermore, casting her in these huge roles despite her mediocre performances, Paramount somehow selected her over Angelina Jolie, serves as a huge win for Israeli propaganda.
Two major female leads will forever be remembered as played by an Israeli actress creating a false correlation between the Zionist project and strong women. And in a region where people have falsely deemed women oppressed beyond salvation - enter a very bland Gal Gadot to show the world that Israel is the exception.
Gadot rose to fame through a spread in Maxim Magazine, who, in their own words are, “Catering to the modern man with content that promises to seduce, entertain and continuously surprise readers.”
The spread issued in 2007 was part of a campaign that Israel was criticised for, for sexualising its military, and particularly female soldiers. The magazine quotes her - "'I taught gymnastics and calisthenics,' says this flawless former Miss Israel. 'The soldiers loved me because I made them fit'."
The subhead of the spread read: “They’re drop-dead gorgeous and can take apart an Uzi in seconds. Are the women of the Israeli Defense Forces the world’s sexiest soldiers?” She was a conscious participant in perpetuating the belief that the treatment of Palestinians is justified - even sexy.
She even hailed the military claiming her background helped land her first high-profile role in the Fast & Furious franchise, saying the director found her knowledge of weapons useful. She once again did a spread for Maxim Magazine after the film.
As a self-proclaimed feminist, she said in an interview with Glamour magazine, “There are such misconceptions as to what a feminist is. Feminism is about equality. I want all people to have the same opportunities and to get the same salaries for the same jobs. I realize I'm doing what I want to do because of the women before me who laid the groundwork. Without them I wouldn't be an educated working mother who is following her dreams; I wouldn't be here.”
She conveniently leaves out generations of women before and after her suffering at the hands of her government, military and her personal actions and advocacy.
While you cannot hold an individual responsible for the actions of their government, in a time where prominent actors such as Nathalie Portman and Seth Rogan speak out against the injustice by the Israeli government, she could take a similar stance and it would be acceptable. However, her stance is made clear, repetitively through almost all public appearances, she is just another cog in the Hasbara machine.
There are many more capable, respectable, and appropriate actresses that could have taken this role, whether from Greece or Egypt. Women who represent ethical values that take on occupation and colonisation - but if we must be technical, in the age of politically correct casting, Cleopatra was not Israeli, and Gal Gadot is no queen.Leave a comment:
-
Thanks IoM for your timely and very informative response!Originally posted by I of Macedon View PostIt comes from pages 60 to 62 check link
Further, specifically regarding 'note 4' and its reference to 'UPZ I7 and 8,' I found (in the link immediately below), that it seems to belong to the following person;
John Tzetzes,**(b. c. 1110—d. after 1180),*Byzantine didactic poet and scholar who preserved much valuable information from ancient Greek literature and scholarship, in which he was widely read.
Tzetzes was for a time secretary to a provincial governor, then earned a meagre living by teaching and writing. He has been described as the perfect specimen of the Byzantine pedant. His literary and scholarly output was enormous, although it contained many inaccuracies—mostly because he was quoting from memory, lacking books, which he said his poverty forced him to do without.
Tzetzes was Georgian on his mother's side. In his works, Tzetzes states that his grandmother was a relative of the Georgian Bagratid princess Maria of Alania who came to Constantinople with her and later became the second wife of the sebastos Constantine, megas droungarios and nephew of the patriarch Michael I Cerularius.[1]
Tzetzes was described as vain, seems to have resented any attempt at rivalry, and violently attacked his fellow grammarians. Owing to a lack of written material, he was obliged to trust to his memory; therefore caution has to be exercised in reading his work. However, he was learned, and made a great contribution to the furtherance of the study of ancient Greek literature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tzetzes
Cheers,
I.Leave a comment:
-
It comes from pages 60 to 62 check linkOriginally posted by indigen View Post
Further, specifically regarding 'note 4' and its reference to 'UPZ I7 and 8,' I found (in the link immediately below), that it seems to belong to the following person;
John Tzetzes,**(b. c. 1110—d. after 1180),*Byzantine didactic poet and scholar who preserved much valuable information from ancient Greek literature and scholarship, in which he was widely read.
Tzetzes was for a time secretary to a provincial governor, then earned a meagre living by teaching and writing. He has been described as the perfect specimen of the Byzantine pedant. His literary and scholarly output was enormous, although it contained many inaccuracies—mostly because he was quoting from memory, lacking books, which he said his poverty forced him to do without.
Tzetzes was Georgian on his mother's side. In his works, Tzetzes states that his grandmother was a relative of the Georgian Bagratid princess Maria of Alania who came to Constantinople with her and later became the second wife of the sebastos Constantine, megas droungarios and nephew of the patriarch Michael I Cerularius.[1]
Tzetzes was described as vain, seems to have resented any attempt at rivalry, and violently attacked his fellow grammarians. Owing to a lack of written material, he was obliged to trust to his memory; therefore caution has to be exercised in reading his work. However, he was learned, and made a great contribution to the furtherance of the study of ancient Greek literature.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Agamoi Thytai View PostSo that is what constitutes a "Hellene", even if it was used rarely. As for the conjectures of a modern author in note 4, I am neither concerned nor does it detract from the evidence provided.Roughly, in this document, the Hellenes are everyone who is 'not autochtonous'.
I suggest that it would be good if someone who owns a copy of the book to look through it and analyze the original dates the papers (the book is a compilation of papers presented over an extended period of time by the author) were written/presented to see if there is any pre and post 1990 papers and what bearing they may have on little details like note 4 below! Going on past evidence, people like NGL Hammond, even though he was generally pro-Greekanyway, were orchestrated by HellAss to shamefully sing to their political tune post 1990 and I suspect a Brussels-based French historian, as the author of the book is, may have had some requests made to him for some purposeful political shading of his work.
I shall retain here as a general frame for this chapter the immigrants that the administration
of the Ptolemies called more or less officially, but in fact very rarely, Hellenies, a term
which is much more complex than one could believe at first sight. In a papyrological dossier
from the third century BC in the Vienna collection,[3] the epthet Hellenes applies to a group
with a particular fiscal status, members of which have not only Macedonian or Greek names,[4]
but also Thracian and Jewish ones.They live in a village in the Fayyum and are in fact more or
less active elements of the Alexandrian royal system on the military, administrative or
econmomic level. Roughly, in this document, the Hellenes are everyone who is 'not autochtonous'.
This papyrus consolidates moreover the image of what the notion of Hellenes represents in the
Documentation of early Hellenistic Egypt.[5] page 94-95.
n4. Valid from the point of view od onomastics (the particularism of Macedonian traditional names
is well known), this distinction, trivial in our studies, is anachronistic and does not correspond
to the feeling that the Macedonians of Egypt had of their unquestionable Greek cultural identity.
In one rare example where the label Hellenes is used in the singular, it is claimed by a Ptolemaios
who declares elswhere he is Makedon (UPZ I 7 and 8)..... Page 94
Hellenistic Egypt: monarchy, society, economy, culture
Front Cover
Jean Bingen, Roger S. Bagnall
0 Reviews
University of California Press, 2007 - History - 305 pages
Hellenistic Egypt brings together for the first time the writings of the preeminent historian,
papyrologist, and epigraphist Jean Bingen. These essays, first published by Bingen from 1970
to 1999, make a distinctive contribution to the historiography of Hellenistic Egypt, a period
in ancient Egypt extending from its conquest by Alexander the Great in 332 B.C. until its
annexation as a province of the Roman Empire by Octavian (later Augustus) in 30 B.C., after
his defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra. Ruled by Ptolemaic kings during this period,
Hellenistic Egypt was a sophisticated, rich, and fertile country. Its history is intimately
bound up with the history of the Mediterranean as a whole, yet parts of that history remain
relatively obscure and open to debate. New evidence, particularly from papyri, emerges frequently
and shifts our understanding and interpretation of this significant time. For the last six
decades Jean Bingen has been a leading editor and interpreter of such evidence. In particular
his work on the Ptolemaic monarchy and economy, which illustrates how the Greeks and Egyptians
interacted, has transformed the field and influenced all subsequent work. Historian and classicist
Roger Bagnall has selected and introduced Bingen's most important essays on this topic.
Copub: Edinburgh University Press
More »
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2007.10.01
Reviewed by Simone Bonim - June 18, 2007
amazon.com/Hellenistic-Egypt-Monarchy-Society-Economy/dp/product-description
From the Inside Flap
"The most comprehensive account of the economy, society, and culture of Hellenistic Egypt available in English."--J.G. Manning, author of Land and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt: The Structure of Land Tenure
About the Author
Jean Bingen is Emeritus Professor of Greek at the Free University of Brussels. As the most distinguished living historian of Hellenistic Egypt, he has published numerous articles and reviews over sixty years of research.
Roger Bagnall is Professor of Classics and History at Columbia University. His books include The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt, Egypt in Late Antiquity, and The Demography of Roman Egypt.Leave a comment:
-
AgamoiOriginally posted by Agamoi Thytai View Post
There you go again quoting bullshit sources, or not even quoting the source, it's becoming annoying having to troll through the rubbish you post, when even you don't read and understand the entire book you quote!Leave a comment:
-
Agamoi there is a distiction made when the macedonians were in egypt.Why would the egyptians make distiction if it was one people.They would have said that they were greek.
But they were two distinct people,so how can someone conquer themselves??Also for your information Agamoi there is a book from professor Philip Freeman published about alexander
where it is said the ordinary macedonian person in Macedonia NEVER spoke GREEK(there was no need) they spoke their own language called MACEDONIAN.THE only people to speak GREEK was the royal house who were MACEDONIAN & spoke Greek because of commerce & trade BUT they did speak their own mother tounge which was MACEDONIAN.
Agamoi i hope you got that it was very simple you only have a claim that if someone speaks greek then they are greek rubbish & pure bullshit.Agamoi wake up to your nonsensical arguments because you are wrong.Last edited by George S.; 02-15-2011, 05:44 PM.Leave a comment:
-
Look what is written too in this very same book,on that specific subject,the Macedonian identity and how Macedonians in Egypt perceived themselves:Originally posted by indigen View Post
"Makedon was felt as a particular Greek ethnic....the word could have had some aristocratic flavour for the Makedones,who probably perceived themselves as an elite among the other Hellenes".
Leave a comment:
-
Indigen there is nothing to discuss it's pretty straight forward.I accept what you just said others may disagree if they want it's up to them.Leave a comment:
-
This IS an excellent confirmation for the existence and continuity of the separate Macedonian national and ethnic identity (in ancient times) even in places such as Egypt, where they were a ruling minority amongst the indigenous local population and a mix of other (sometimes more numerous) immigrant/settler communities. Very valuable information!Originally posted by I of Macedon View Post
NB:To George S. and others,
This is a very important and solid contribution by IoM that should not be further degraded by general chit chat (and mostly off topic) posts which, IMO, can (and should, if so desired) be discussed in the "General Discussion" MTO Forum.
So pochit,
I.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: